Loading...
Loading...
Found 37 Skills
Audit design documents for missing decisions, compatibility risks, rollout gaps, and observability omissions. Use whenever the user asks to review a design doc, architecture proposal, implementation-facing design, plan, or design-adjacent markdown file for completeness, migration strategy, rollback, data handling, or suggested additions without directly editing the document. Also trigger on short requests such as `review <file>.md` or `audit <file>.md` when the target looks like a design, plan, architecture, proposal, or decision document.
Convene 11 role-specialized Claude agents to debate technical decisions in parallel, with the invoking Claude acting as CEO
This skill analyzes code for design quality improvements across 8 dimensions: Naming, Object Calisthenics, Coupling & Cohesion, Immutability, Domain Integrity, Type System, Simplicity, and Performance. Ensures rigorous, evidence-based analysis by: (1) Understanding code flow first via implementation-analysis protocol, (2) Systematically evaluating each dimension with specific criteria, (3) Providing actionable findings with file:line references. Triggers when users request: code analysis, design review, refactoring opportunities, code quality assessment, architecture evaluation.
Find important users, contexts, constraints, dependencies, consequences, and conditions that a design discussion has not considered at all. Use when a designer asks "what am I missing?", wants edge perspectives beyond UI states, or needs a pre-review scan for overlooked experience risks.
Continuously question users about their plan or design. Suitable for scenarios where users want to stress-test their plan before building, or when using any "grill" trigger phrases.
Interrogate a UX idea, requirement, flow, feature, or design direction before execution. Use when a designer asks to be challenged, wants assumptions exposed, wants a red-team review of the premise, or needs hard questions that test whether the proposed work should exist at all.
Run a structured WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility audit on a design, screen, component, or page. Produces a prioritized issue list — each finding cites the violated WCAG criterion, a severity rating (Critical/Major/Minor), and a concrete fix. Use when auditing for a11y compliance or as a validation step after generating UI.
Load when reviewing UI code, designing a component or layout, picking an easing curve or transition, deciding whether something should animate or make a sound, choosing typography, color (OKLCH, contrast) or avatars, writing UI copy or errors, auditing for AI-default tells, code tells or a11y misses, making a screen look less generated, consuming DESIGN.md or .design tokens, writing design-system docs for agents, giving Agentation feedback, asking why a UI feels flat or unfinished, judging when delight earns its weight, designing or generating UI sound effects and syncing them to motion, planning, cutting, scoring or reviewing a product launch video, creating or animating SVG (icons, mascots, logo reveals, video-to-vector), prototyping directions behind a picker, building a tool instead of re-prompting, or choosing which design skill should own a job. Distills Emil Kowalski, Benji Taylor, transitions.dev, guidelines.sh, Vercel, Index, Apple's audio-haptic principles and 47 measured launch films.
Define project UI/UX design specs and output design-spec.md, review existing interfaces and deliver prioritized fix recommendations, or compile design rules for specific surfaces. Use when the user asks for a design system, design spec, or full UI review; simple questions about a single color, font size, or button size get a direct answer.
SOLID and IoC design review. Use when the user asks to check SOLID, judge the design quality of a class or namespace, or when another skill needs a design review of the code it touched.
You MUST use this when work has to be designed before any code is written - a new feature, a change to product or UX behavior, an architecture change, success criteria that are still unclear, or a choice between two materially different approaches - including a spec revision after a document review. A fully specified mechanical refactor, a localized fix whose expected behavior is known, or a config change with a single possible outcome gets no spec; the skill hands it to implement in one sentence. Turns the request into a spec with checkable acceptance criteria behind an explicit approval. Replaces devflow scope-triage.
Stress-test a plan by walking its decision tree one question at a time. Use when the user wants to pressure-test a design before implementation.